Accounting for BEV Users’ Risk Attitudes and Charging Inertia in En Route Charging Choice Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper innovatively explores BEV (battery electric vehicle) users’ risk attitudes and charging inertia, examining their effects on en route charging and charging route choice behavior. An attitudinal survey was conducted to explore the two latent variables of risk attitudes and charging inertia in relation to socioeconomic and travel‐related characteristics. ICLV (Integrated choice and latent variable) models are adopted to estimate the latent variables and the charging choice behavior simultaneously. Specifically, uncertainty in energy consumption is first considered in the ICLV model, which is represented by the available range (AR) uncertainty. Multinomial logit (MNL) models directly incorporating socioeconomic attributes are employed as a reference for comparison with ICLV models. Results illustrate that risk attitudes and charging inertia both play significant roles in modeling en route charging choice behavior. Risk‐averse users and users having charging inertia value AR uncertainty more. Battery range, charging frequency, and income emerge as the most crucial factors influencing users’ intention to charge en route. The results show significant heterogeneity of BEV users in attitudes and charging choice behavior, underscoring the importance of accounting for the heterogeneity in en route charging demand estimation and deployment optimization of public charging stations, particularly for medium‐to long‐distance trips.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".